Guster v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . where there is no showing that a defendant was prejudiced or injured by the failure of the trial court to fully comply with Article 26.13, supra, and where no objection is made to such failure at the time the plea is accepted or by motion for new trial, that failure to fully comply will not constitute reversible error on appeal.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jamail v. State · Ex Parte Beiersdorf

2. ““The court should not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere without first determining that the plea is voluntary. By inquiry of the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel, the court should determine whether the tendered plea is the result of prior plea discussions and a plea agreement, and, if it is, what agreement has been reached. If the prosecuting attorney has agreed to seek charge or sentence concessions which must be approved by the court, the court must advise the defendant personally that the recommendations of the prosecuting attorney are not binding on the court. The court should then address the defendant personally and determine whether other promises or any force or threats were used to obtain the plea.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. State

3. “In this case: (1) The defendant executed a written statement stating that he is uninfluenced by fear, persuasion, or delusive hope of pardon; (2) The appellant’s attorney signed the statement and declared that he had advised and counseled the appellant concerning the statement; (3) The appellant and his attorney reaffirmed their declarations in the statement in open court at the trial; and (4) After examining the appellant and hearing the verbal acknowledge-ments concerning the veracity of the statements by appellant and his counsel, the trial judge signed an order reciting that it plainly appeared to him that the appellant was mentally competent and was uninfluenced by fear, persuasion, or delusive hope of pardon.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. State